Question: If Rose and Lillard have near identical physical gifts, what makes one's playing style so different than the others? Maybe this question has an obvious answer to some of you, but I'm at a loss. Sure, you can say that it's the same with any other person. Take a 5 foot 7 inch dude and another 5 foot 7 inch guy and compare their playing styles, and for the most part SOME things would differ, but NOT their entire style of play. Any answers?

I, for one, am NOT saying he CAN'T improve athletic. Like I said, I think he's getting a feel for the 82 game season too, with high MPG, he's reserving his energy for when needed. But, what I'm saying is he will mostlikely never play like Rose. Very different styles of play. Damian really needs to work on his finishing at the rim, the one major thing, I see, that wasn't challenging enough in college for him compared to the NBA.

now, those aren't the sum and total of athletic ability but it does show that Rose and Lillard were pretty close in the gauges that NBA teams use to measure their prospects. There really wasn't a significant difference between them except Rose looked to have better vertical speed while Lillard seemed to have better agility

there may not be the gulf between them that many imagine

You don't think being 2+ years older than derrick physically matters? I'd be interested to see what lillards combine numbers would have looked at at 19.

Edit: nevermind that. Just look at the differences athletically between 19 year old LeBron and 21 year old LeBron. Or 19 year old kobe and 21 year old Kobe. Or 19 year old rose and 21 year old rose. or 19 year old Durant and 21 year old Durant. Or 19 year old T Mac and 21 year old Tmac. I could go on and on. If you are goi g to compare them, compare them at the same age developmentally, not when they entered the league.

did I say an age difference doesn't matter? I think it does, although I don't think it matters as much as you and others are making it out to matter

you're also contrasting a difference between players when they entered the NBA and a couple of years later....after they have the advantages of a couple of NBA training camps as well as having the attention and support of NBA trainers, staffs, and facilities

so then, 21-22 year old players apparently can't develop with that kind of support, while 19 and 20 year old players apparently can...is that what you're saying?

I think it's also the case that everybody is imagining Rose last year before his injury. Well that was Rose in his 3rd season who was a significantly improved player over his rookie season. While as we know, it's Lillard's rookie season. If the age difference when drafted is significant factor, then so it the difference in experience.

again, I am not saying Lillard is now, or will ever be, the player Rose is. I am saying that by the gauges the NBA uses, they were pretty similar in size, verticals, and mobility the month before they were drafted.

Furthermore, the same argument you are implying and others are explicitly making, that being that Lillard doesn't have a lot of room to improve because of his 'age', were the exact same arguments made against Brandon Roy and those arguments were fundamentally flawed and quite wrong. Roy did improve significantly from his rookie year to his 3rd season. Probably not as much as Rose improved, but it was a big advancement in ability

will Lillard match that? I don't know. But at least I know it's very possible. As a matter of fact, it's almost certain. Because if it wasn't then you're saying that Larry Bird who was 23 when he was a rookie didn't improve. Or that Michael Jordan who was only 6 months younger then Lillard is as a rookie had no room for improvement. The list of players who started at 22 is extremely long. That used to be the norm

Wizenheimer wrote:Furthermore, the same argument you are implying and others are explicitly making, that being that Lillard doesn't have a lot of room to improve because of his 'age', were the exact same arguments made against Brandon Roy and those arguments were fundamentally flawed and quite wrong. Roy did improve significantly from his rookie year to his 3rd season. Probably not as much as Rose improved, but it was a big advancement in ability

People have a lot of strange things stuck in their heads. One being that a player that stayed in school will not improve much in the NBA.

They like to point to players really becoming what they are in their 3rd season. With how early a lot of guys are drafted these days they are usually around 22 by then. So people assume it's an age thing ignoring the fact that it's much more of an NBA experience thing. If a guy is 19 or 22 a rookie is a rookie. People had doubts Damian could even play in the NBA because he played in a small school against weak competition, but then they turn it around now and claim he's only as good as he is because he benefited from staying in school. Can't have it both ways.

Whether a guy gains access to NBA facilities and training staffs at 19 or 21 is pretty irrelevant. Experience is what counts. Guys do not stop improving at 22, unless they stayed in school apparently. To anyone being objective there's no logical reason to think Lillard can't get better, he's showing all-star potential right now in his rookie year.

MellowRose wrote:Question: If Rose and Lillard have near identical physical gifts, what makes one's playing style so different than the others? Maybe this question has an obvious answer to some of you, but I'm at a loss. Sure, you can say that it's the same with any other person. Take a 5 foot 7 inch dude and another 5 foot 7 inch guy and compare their playing styles, and for the most part SOME things would differ, but NOT their entire style of play. Any answers?

They just play differently. Rose IS more "explosive" even if Lillard is comparable in athletic measurements. Lillard has a better shot and has taken advantage of it, where as Rose's shot isn't as good. He relies more on driving which is why he got really good at it.

Rose has improved his shot though, so it's silly to think Lillard can't do the same with his driving.

Bskey wrote:They like to point to players really becoming what they are in their 3rd season. With how early a lot of guys are drafted these days they are usually around 22 by then. So people assume it's an age thing ignoring the fact that it's much more of an NBA experience thing. If a guy is 19 or 22 a rookie is a rookie. People had doubts Damian could even play in the NBA because he played in a small school against weak competition, but then they turn it around now and claim he's only as good as he is because he benefited from staying in school. Can't have it both ways.

Whether a guy gains access to NBA facilities and training staffs at 19 or 21 is pretty irrelevant. Experience is what counts. Guys do not stop improving at 22, unless they stayed in school apparently. To anyone being objective there's no logical reason to think Lillard can't get better, he's showing all-star potential right now in his rookie year.

To add to what you said. Nowadays, people commonly associate success and potential by how early players leave college.

Bskey wrote:They like to point to players really becoming what they are in their 3rd season. With how early a lot of guys are drafted these days they are usually around 22 by then. So people assume it's an age thing ignoring the fact that it's much more of an NBA experience thing. If a guy is 19 or 22 a rookie is a rookie. People had doubts Damian could even play in the NBA because he played in a small school against weak competition, but then they turn it around now and claim he's only as good as he is because he benefited from staying in school. Can't have it both ways.

Whether a guy gains access to NBA facilities and training staffs at 19 or 21 is pretty irrelevant. Experience is what counts. Guys do not stop improving at 22, unless they stayed in school apparently. To anyone being objective there's no logical reason to think Lillard can't get better, he's showing all-star potential right now in his rookie year.

To add to what you said. Nowadays, people commonly associate success and potential by how early players leave college.

And more often than not the one and doners don't really tap into that perceived upside.

Of course, some 4 year college players don't become stars, but for every Derrick Rose there's a Tim Duncan as far as player development goes.

now, those aren't the sum and total of athletic ability but it does show that Rose and Lillard were pretty close in the gauges that NBA teams use to measure their prospects. There really wasn't a significant difference between them except Rose looked to have better vertical speed while Lillard seemed to have better agility

there may not be the gulf between them that many imagine

You don't think being 2+ years older than derrick physically matters? I'd be interested to see what lillards combine numbers would have looked at at 19.

Edit: nevermind that. Just look at the differences athletically between 19 year old LeBron and 21 year old LeBron. Or 19 year old kobe and 21 year old Kobe. Or 19 year old rose and 21 year old rose. or 19 year old Durant and 21 year old Durant. Or 19 year old T Mac and 21 year old Tmac. I could go on and on. If you are goi g to compare them, compare them at the same age developmentally, not when they entered the league.

did I say an age difference doesn't matter? I think it does, although I don't think it matters as much as you and others are making it out to matter

you're also contrasting a difference between players when they entered the NBA and a couple of years later....after they have the advantages of a couple of NBA training camps as well as having the attention and support of NBA trainers, staffs, and facilities

so then, 21-22 year old players apparently can't develop with that kind of support, while 19 and 20 year old players apparently can...is that what you're saying?

I think it's also the case that everybody is imagining Rose last year before his injury. Well that was Rose in his 3rd season who was a significantly improved player over his rookie season. While as we know, it's Lillard's rookie season. If the age difference when drafted is significant factor, then so it the difference in experience.

again, I am not saying Lillard is now, or will ever be, the player Rose is. I am saying that by the gauges the NBA uses, they were pretty similar in size, verticals, and mobility the month before they were drafted.

Furthermore, the same argument you are implying and others are explicitly making, that being that Lillard doesn't have a lot of room to improve because of his 'age', were the exact same arguments made against Brandon Roy and those arguments were fundamentally flawed and quite wrong. Roy did improve significantly from his rookie year to his 3rd season. Probably not as much as Rose improved, but it was a big advancement in ability

will Lillard match that? I don't know. But at least I know it's very possible. As a matter of fact, it's almost certain. Because if it wasn't then you're saying that Larry Bird who was 23 when he was a rookie didn't improve. Or that Michael Jordan who was only 6 months younger then Lillard is as a rookie had no room for improvement. The list of players who started at 22 is extremely long. That used to be the norm

I'm saying a 22 year ol has LESS room for improvement developmentally than a 19 year old. That is all. ZThe rest of your post is a nonsensical arguement against a strawman that I did not create, nor will I entertain. Your original argument was and remains too simplistic. I was rebutting that, not whether or not he can improve athletically, which is something I never commented on to begin with.

Red Larrivee wrote:The Bulls have too many untouchables for a team without a second option.

Even Granger, Deng, et al. are above the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of 4 year guys.

That doesn't even count the "2 and done" guys like Shaq, CP3, Black Griffin, Westbrook etc

Outside of Wade, Roy and Duncan, all exceptions to the four year rule (Was Roy a 4 year player?), your argument fails terribly. There ARE exceptions of course. One and done'rs fail. And certainly there are a (very small) number of 4 year guys that break out. But the general rule of the NBA is, and HAS BEEN for the last 20 years, that if you are good enough to go, you go as early as you can. 4 year college players become 4 year college players BECAUSE largely in years 1,2, and 3, they aren't seen as super high upside NBA players. Period.

Again, this isn't a commentary on Lillard specifically, but moreso on the lazy analysis tht is being used to categorize him as this or that.

Red Larrivee wrote:The Bulls have too many untouchables for a team without a second option.